Bail application rejected against an accused of rape alleged to have committed sexual assault and recorded a video. Court held it not inclined to release the petitioner in custody.
Bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
B.A .No. 4607 of 2022
Mritunjay Goswami @ Mritunjay Das Goswami
… … Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl. PP ( Cyber Crime)
-------- Order No. 08 /Dated: 16th September, 2022
Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi , the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned Spl. PP ( Cyber Crime) for the State.
Mr. Sabyasanchi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case in which there is relationship between 25 years old married lady and the petitioner. The relationship is entirely voluntary and consensual. It is further submitted that there is no specific date and time mentioned regarding the sexual assault or rape. Counsel further says that it is only when the contents of the video came into the knowledge of the husband the FIR was lodged. Counsel further says that the relationship was consensual rather than one of possible rape. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 23.11.2021, therefore, the privilege of bail should be allowed to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and pointed out that this is forcible rape and video has been made and on the basis of the video, sexual violation of the victim was made. He has referred to paragraph 23 of the case diary and pointed out that in the mobile of the accused in the gallery there is sufficient photography or videography of the sexual offence. He has also referred to para 26 of the case diary and submits that the pictures or video was sent to the mobile of the husband which is ample evidence regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Sharda/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to a petitioner accused of rape who has been in custody since late 2021.
Mritunjay Goswami
The State of Jharkhand
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
